Both Chris and Kenneth make interesting points throughout the discussion and disagree on some points as can be expected.

However in the course of the conversation Kenneth made some frankly misleading comments on the tropical zodiac and so I would like to invite conversation and discussion here not about promoting one zodiac over another, but about doing away with the tired tropes that we see time and again where one person tries to bash or denigrate the zodiac they don't use.

Two particular points stand out in this discussion that I would like to invite tropical and sidereal astrologers to come together on and deal with reasonably.

In mentioning that the sidereal zodiac is not defined by the constellational boundaries of the same name, Chris explains that both zodiacs utilise an idealised zodiac where each sign is 30º in arc. However things start to go wrong when Ken replies saying:

Kenneth Bowser, 46 mins 15 seconds

Quote:

This is often brought up as a criticism of the sidereal system as though tropical reckoning is somehow better in this respect. The seasons are not equal either, Summer is over 93 days long, Winter is less than 89 days long, Spring and Fall are not equal in length. So the supposed equal size of the tropical signs deviate from the real world too. Which renders the criticism of the sidereal zodiac sort of a non starter

The tropical and sidereal zodiacs have come back somewhat into focus lately but I think as an astrological community it's important we try not to make false claims for either zodiac. Here, however, Kenneth does indeed make a false claim - the idea that the zodiac be measured based on how long the sun takes to traverse each sign/quadrant is a strawman argument as of course the tropical, like the sidereal zodiac, is an equal spatial division of an idealised circle. In tropical's case that could be imagined as taking the points at which the equator and ecliptic intersect and the points of maximum declination north and south of the equator of the ecliptic and dividing up these quarters, or, more simply dividing up the circle from the vernal equinoctial point.

The problem we keep having as a community as I see it, is the attempts to distort the tradition of nature of each zodiac so as to make some false claim for some other zodiac but their preferred zodiac. There are interesting and sound reasons one may want to choose one zodiac over another but surely as a community it's time to move past this kind of straw man attack?

Sadly Kenneth Bowser makes another not long after where he pretends that the only 'right' astronomical way of understanding the return of a body is its sidereal orbital period and ignoring the return of a planet by way of celestial longitude, or, for that matter, by right ascension. He wastes no time and doesn't mince his words here:

Kenneth Bowser, 55 mins 00 seconds

Quote:

[a tropical astrologer] is making the case for a Pluto return in 2022. But the orbital period of Pluto is 247.686 years and so I pointed out that Pluto is not going to reach the same position with respect with sidereal reckoning that it had in 1776 at the time of the declaration of independence until February 2024, even though a tropical ephemeris will say 'yes, yes it will in February 2022', but that's only 245 years, that's two years short of a complete orbit. So the point I was trying to make is that the consequence of ignoring precession is that timing gets out of synch with the sky fairly quickly in terms of a solar return for an individual during a regular life time, and quite a lot more over several centuries more than that - because it's undeniably irrevocably true that Pluto will not get back, will not return, to the same position in the sky it had on the 4th of July 1776 until February, I think February 22nd 2024. But a tropical ephemeris will tell you '[i]oh no, that's February 2022[i]' - and the tropical ephemeris is wrong.

(emphasis mine)

Sadly these kinds of distortions of astronomical "right" and "wrong" are quite common among people wanting to attack one zodiac over another. Of course the tropical ephemeris is not wrong because it's not trying or making a claim to plot the position or return of planets sidereally, or to put it another way, based on its sidereal period, but instead is tracking the return of planets to their celestial longitude - incidentally this same argument would rule out anything which measured that return by right ascension.

So we have some great sidereal astrologers here and I'm of the opinion that arguments like this do nothing to help sidereal astrologers, nor indeed tropical astrologers, and serve only to promote both sides of this approach to be more entrenched in their opinions and promotes continuing disrespect and disregard for different zodiacs, especially as both of these claims are fundamentally untrue.

I would love to hear from some of our sidereal astrologers in particular what they think of this both to see how commonly held these beliefs are as well as to see whether, even just as a microcosm of the astrological community, we can't promote a better sympathetic understanding of each other's zodiac preferences._________________"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

In a number of ways, I don't always agree with Ken Bowser's perspective, but Ken wasn't bashing a zodiac here. He was simply stating an astronomical fact.

What would an astronomer say if you told him that Pluto's cycle was really two years shorter than is generally known? And what longitude are we talking about? In tropical terms the longitude that applies only for a short moment between two spring equinoxes. Ken was demonstrating the havoc precession creates in natural planetary cycles.

Of course this cyclic principle also applies to any return charts astrologers use such as solar and lunar returns. What REALLY is the natal longitude (point of initiation) a planet returns to, especially as we grow older? Are ecliptic longitudes shifting (tropical) or stationary (sidereal)? The accuracy of the appropriate planets in relation to angles for events in return charts has always been western sidereal's most convincing argument.

Ken used sidereal return charts as a basis for his prediction that Donald Trump would be our next president when almost everyone else (even sidereal astrologers who used a variety of different techniques) missed on this key prediction.

thanks for drawing my attention to this paul and for your comments here.

i am listening to the interview now... would be nice if chris was able to put these 2 hour interviews in the form of a transcription for me, but i am sure that would be quite tedious to do..

although i do not use sidereal, i too would be curious to hear from other astrologers who do.. kenneth bowser has posted here at skyscript before.. perhaps if your post was placed in a different forum it would be more visible?

i know it goes without saying that the sidereal verses tropical are using a different reference and basis, so they come up with a different perspective based on this. i agree with you that these straw man set ups are something that astrologers would benefit from dropping, but perhaps this is hard for some to do!

i am into this interview for 30 minutes.. kens comments how how he picked trump to win based on sidereal and thus those who used tropical and got it wrong must have believed strongly in the correctness of the zodiac they were using... i would like to comment on this! actually - aside from the question of trumps 2 different birth times, we also had a few different charts for hillary clinton as well... when astrologers are confronted with multiple birth times, it doesn't really matter what zodiac an astrologer uses... but alas, i suppose this can be used as another rationale for why tropical just doesn't cut it!!!

also interesting to hear how strongly solar returns factor into kenneth bowsers view...

curious to hear from others on this and may comment further later..

thanks
james

edit - i see now that you did post it on the sidereal forum... good! maybe martin or konrad will comment? i hope so!!

This is often brought up as a criticism of the sidereal system as though tropical reckoning is somehow better in this respect. The seasons are not equal either, Summer is over 93 days long, Winter is less than 89 days long, Spring and Fall are not equal in length. So the supposed equal size of the tropical signs deviate from the real world too. Which renders the criticism of the sidereal zodiac sort of a non starter.

I had to read this several times to get the gist of what Ken was trying to say. Admittedly he wasn't clear in what I believe was his intention. Apparently the conversation went like this:

But he reverted back to the part of the conversation which had to do with a common criticism of the sidereal zodiac: "The signs don't align perfectly with the constellations."

I believe what Ken meant to say was that if we use the inequality argument against the sidereal zodiac, then the same type of argument could be used against the tropical zodiac, that tropical seasons aren't equal either. [That is, they don't align perfectly with tropical 30 degree signs.] Ken stated this poorly, but it wasn't a direct criticism of the tropical zodiac as such.

He was simply saying (I believe) that a similar argument of unequal seasons could be a criticism of the tropical zodiac. I suspect his thought behind this was that neither argument is valid or meaningful. At least this is how I interpret this segment of the podcast.

Ken very well knows, just as we all do, that the tropical zodiac is measured from equinox to equinox and isn't related to the precise length of seasons at certain northern latitudes. A problem with vocal exchanges is that often what we want to say doesn't come across as we mean it. One has to totally think in the instant on one's feet, especially if a conversation is being recorded. The advantage of written communication is that there is time to consider the words we use to express our thoughts._________________http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Therese can you be clear on what you're saying here - are you agreeing that "the tropical ephemeris is wrong" because it doesn't measure what it doesn't claim to? I'm curious what is 'wrong' about measuring by celestial longitude?

Quote:

What would an astronomer say if you told him that Pluto's cycle was really two years shorter than is generally known? And what longitude are we talking about? In tropical terms the longitude that applies only for a short moment between two spring equinoxes. Ken was demonstrating the havoc precession creates in natural planetary cycles.

But I don't think anyone is claiming that the return of a planet to the same degree by, for example, right ascension or ecliptic longitude is the same as the orbital period of a planet. An analogy I would give is the difference between a sidereal and solar day - it's not a perfect analogy but will hopefully make sense. Imagine that you want to measure a day and so you decide the only meaningful way to do it is when a given fixed star crosses the MC, or, rather, when the earth has rotated a full 360º degrees on its axis which is basically the same thing. Well you would be fine in saying this is a full rotation of the earth and therefore a full day. Your friend who is tasked with the same problem of measuring the day instead chooses the point at which the sun crosses the MC at high noon. Both are validly measuring a day but each one is measuring something else and so each one will be four minutes different in their measurement every consecutive day - eventually a couple of weeks later one person will be measuring a full day a full hour before the other and so on.

The problem isn't that one person is measuring something wrong, the problem is in establishing whether a day could be a meaningful connection to the return of a point in space over the MC and the other is a meaningful connection to a more experiential day with regards the Sun returning to its apparent position in relation to a perspective at a location in earth. It's not that one is measuring a day wrong, but rather the meaningfulness behind what one measures is different.

In the same way the sidereal measurement is equivalent to saying that the important thing is a sidereal period or orbit of a planet, which has a meaningfulness attached, and the tropical perspective is saying it's a return relative to the perspective on earth in relation to the earth.

it's not that one is wrong, it's that both are measuring something different. Now you would be quite right to make an argument of incorrectness if the tropical ephemeris said that their positions were measuring from a sidereal orbital perspective or else that a tropical return is a return of a planet to the same point in its orbit around the sun etc. but it doesn't make that claim of course.

Quote:

What REALLY is the natal longitude (point of initiation) a planet returns to, especially as we grow older?

It's a relative longitude as measured from the intersection of the ecliptic and equator. Right ascension works from the same principle of course. I can't imagine anyone realistically imagining that measurements by right ascension are wrong - we obviously have to account for precession if this is what we're interested in, but if it's not, and we're interested in the proportional or relative return of a point to the same distance from the vernal point that is what measuring by right ascension or else using a tropical ephemeris would give you.

Quote:

Ken used sidereal return charts as a basis for his prediction that Donald Trump would be our next president when almost everyone else (even sidereal astrologers who used a variety of different techniques) missed on this key prediction.

As you know, tropical and sidereal astrologers have both gotten this right and wrong, whether they used a solar return chart or not - in fact in the podcast much of his argument for the solar return involved aspects which would be more or less the same in the tropical return chart too. In any event I'm keen for the discussion to not focus on Ken and his methods (I don't feel comfortable evaluating an astrologer themselves, that seems unfair).

Quote:

I believe what Ken meant to say was that if we use the inequality argument against the sidereal zodiac, then the same type of argument could be used against the tropical zodiac,

But why on earth would anyone make up an argument which is false and apply it to the tropical zodiac just to explain a point about the sidereal zodiac. The sidereal zodiac as I understand it employs the majesty, wonder, symbolism, effectiveness etc. of the stellar positions by way of their being incapsulated by the 30º divisions which roughly coincide with the constellations of the same name but are not exact, but crucially are not meant to be coincided as its an idealised zodiac in which the constellational 'power' (for want of a better word) is nevertheless meaningfully expressed through the sign of the same name. We don't have to mention tropical at all. This is a valid discussion point as many confuse the constellational zodiac with the signs and sidereal astrologers typically refer to their signs as constellations which can introduce greater confusion.

Instead, not a single person ever claimed that the tropical zodiac is based on the length of time it takes the sun to traverse it any more than anyone has made that claim for sidereal - I mean this could be thrown at sidereal too and say it's the time it takes the Sun to move through the star groups or constellations or sidereal signs.

I dont' believe Ken's intention was to correct or clarify this point about sidereal, but rather to take a potshot at tropical in an effort to make it seem like Tropical was based on a false premise to begin with - and that's disappointing. In any event, Ken has had opportunity to correct himself if this is what he meant as he's engaged in some facebook discussion on Chris Brennan's post advertising the podcast and chose not to despite this issue being raised, so I have to assume Ken meant what he said and not what he didn't say._________________"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

[quote="james_m"]
i am listening to the interview now... would be nice if chris was able to put these 2 hour interviews in the form of a transcription for me, but i am sure that would be quite tedious to do.. [/quote

That would be great, but a colossal effort to do I think especially as many of them go over an hour and in this case two hours.

Quote:

although i do not use sidereal, i too would be curious to hear from other astrologers who do.. kenneth bowser has posted here at skyscript before.. perhaps if your post was placed in a different forum it would be more visible?

As you note later I did mention it in the sidereal forum, but for what it's worth I also PM'd Ken on facebook to draw his attention to this discussion should he wish to join in and I also did the same to his wife who was quite involved in the discussion on facebook. Facebook isn't really a good place for these kinds of exchanges in my opinion hence my reason for wanting to create this post._________________"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

interestingly enough while i was on chris brennan's website, i happened to notice this page on transcripts! not sure how one accesses them off his site, but here is the page.. http://theastrologypodcast.com/transcripts/

thanks for raising the issue on the cycle of pluto example from the interview between chris and ken bowser.. i was thinking of that same thing myself when i ran thru that part of the interview.. your words to which i agree with fully - "it's not that one is wrong, it's that both are measuring something different."

the end of the interview which i am just listening to now 2 hours into this, ken is basically saying one system is right and the other is wrong... to go back to what i have just quoted from you above, what i can't understand is the idea some in the astrological community are unwilling or fail to acknowledge how a different reference point, or emphasis on some part of the world above and around us will give a different view.. to me all the different views on the issue of zodiacs come down to this as i see it..

ken is basically saying one system is right and the other is wrong... to go back to what i have just quoted from you above, what i can't understand is the idea some in the astrological community are unwilling or fail to acknowledge how a different reference point, or emphasis on some part of the world above and around us will give a different view.. to me all the different views on the issue of zodiacs come down to this as i see it..

Yes. Ken Bowser clearly does not ascribe to any relativistic or divinatory outlook where more than one approach to astrology can be correct or valid in its own terms. Rather he ascribes to the 'Highlander ' school of thinking ie 'there can only be one!''. I have seen similar outlooks amongst some tropicalists who claim only one house system or rulership system can actually 'work'. It reminds me of a theological stance which maintains the attitude that only one belief system can be true and all others are the road to falsehood and delusion. Although supporters of this kind of outlook usually seek to bolster their position by claiming authority either through historical precedent or by arguing their position is somehow 'scientific' and can be empirically verified.

In my experience western siderealists seem more likely to fall into this kind of dualistic thinking. Perhaps because they have all had to go through a kind of conversion experience where the zodiac they originally used was rejected by them as less accurate. I think that encourages many western siderealists to view their former outlook as outright wrong or mistaken. Rather than ascribe this as just a personal or subjective experience they may seek to universalize their perception as generally true for everyone. That combined with their small numbers in the western astrological community may explain the kind of missionary zeal one can often detect amongst practitioners of western siderealism.

Mark_________________‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly

Last edited by Mark on Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:37 pm; edited 2 times in total

ken is basically saying one system is right and the other is wrong... to go back to what i have just quoted from you above, what i can't understand is the idea some in the astrological community are unwilling or fail to acknowledge how a different reference point, or emphasis on some part of the world above and around us will give a different view.. to me all the different views on the issue of zodiacs come down to this as i see it..

Yes. Ken Bowser does not ascribe to any relativistic or divinatory outlook where more than approach to astrology can be correct or valid in its own terms. Rather he ascribes to the 'Highlander ' school of thinking ie 'there can only be one!''. I have seen similar outlooks amongst tropicalists who claim only one house system or rulership system can actually 'work'. It reminds me of a theological stance which maintains the attitude that only one belief system can be true and all others are the road to falsehood and delusion. Although supporters of this kind of outlook usually seek to bolster their position by claiming authority either through historical precedent or by arguing their position is somehow 'scientific' and can be empirically verified.

In my experience western siderealists seem more likely to fall into this kind of dualistic thinking. Perhaps because they have all had to go through a kind of conversion experience where the zodiac they originally used was rejected by them as less accurate. I think that encourages many western siderealists to view their former outlook as outright wrong or mistaken. Rather than ascribe this as just a personal or subjective experience they may seek to universalise their perception as generally true for everyone. That combined with their small numbers in the western astrological community may explain the kind of missionary zeal one can often detect amongst practitioners of western siderealism.

Mark

Since you have couched this in religious terms, Mark, the phenomenon you are describing here is more likely down to the fact that modern astrologers (both in the sense of being modern and those practising modern astrology), happen to be mostly using the tropical measurement, and are people who would describe themselves as 'spiritual, but not religious', being a part of the New Age sensu lato, as scholar Wouter Hanegraaff would term it. A feature of this group is a strong acsription to the notion of relativism i.e. there are no absolute truths. Any zealous tendencies you are experiencing with sidereal practitioners is more likely going to be a feature of a particular school or group, a tendency that also exists in particular groups of people who practise tropical astrology, it is just there are more of the general population to camouflage them.

For what it is worth, I think the relativists would be correct if we were dealing with more simple forms of divination or those more heavily reliant on the 'intuition' of the practitioner. My own view means I will be seen to be from amongst the zealots, I'm afraid! The issue as I see it is that if we follow say Abu Ma'shar's annual predictive techniques, the difference between the two measurements is such that it affects our choice of lord of the year and also the time of any ingresses into important signs for that year; I'm sure you'll agree that a Mars year should look very different to a Jupiter year, both in quality and in the fact that Mars is much more mobile. I think this matters less for modern astrologers, and thus most moderns, since astrology was revolutionised in the last century or so and much of astrological technique today was inutuited or reasoned into existence by certain authorities. However, for those of us using ancient forms which have, in the main, quite consistent core principles there is a 'one or the other' choice to be made. If you believe that events can be timed to quite fine periods of time, I don't see how saying that 'both work' when using the same techniques on what, in essence, are different charts is a tenable position._________________http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com

I do understand where you're coming from even if experience shows me that despite all this there are traditionally inclined sidereal western astrologers who nevertheless are no less accurate or insightful than tropical (take our own Martin Gansten for example).

I'm curious if you apply this thinking to house cusps too - namely only one house system can be right._________________"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

I do understand where you're coming from even if experience shows me that despite all this there are traditionally inclined sidereal western astrologers who nevertheless are no less accurate or insightful than tropical (take our own Martin Gansten for example)

Hi Paul,

I should hope so as I count myself among them!

Quote:

I'm curious if you apply this thinking to house cusps too - namely only one house system can be right.

I should be clear, my statements about the zodiac and accuracy are based upon the entirely unrealistic supposition of pristine astrological practice. By that, I mean these are my thoughts without taking into account the 'impurities' that occur when we filter our delineation through our own biases, experiences and desires. Realistically, correct predictions are made using both zodiacs, but I see that as more of a consequence of the nature of some aspects of astrology (such as having 7 planets doing all of the talking, so there is bound to be cross-over between the two zodiacs when timing events), and the astrologer being correct more so due to non-astrological reasons than a successful application of astrological technique.

In regard to houses, I'd say this issue falls under the last point. I would hesitate to say that any system, measurement or house, is 'wrong' due to the amount of variables that go into making a prediction, but that certain options should produce more accurate results over a longer period of time than others. I think the important thing is to try and understand what each system is doing and why they were used. As an example, the topic of the mother came to be signified by the 10th house when before it was signified by the 4th. Did this change occur because of a rethinking of principles already understood? Or did it occur because of blatant misunderstanding of prior principles? The danger for me is in the second option and that is why it is important we look back and track these things. I will note though, I do not see the choice of the house system used as anywhere near as big an issue as the choice of longitudinal measurement and thus the rulership scheme. The big problem with an appeal to history in regard to zodiac used, of course, is that we cannot be completely certain of the reasons for the change from a sidereal measurement to a tropical one, and neither was that change simple or uniform._________________http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com

Realistically, correct predictions are made using both zodiacs, but I see that as more of a consequence of the nature of some aspects of astrology (such as having 7 planets doing all of the talking, so there is bound to be cross-over between the two zodiacs when timing events) [...]

I have hesitated to get into this discussion for several reasons (one being that I am travelling, with limited time for forum discussions), but I want to second what Konrad says here. It is something that has often occurred to me as well. With only seven planets to choose from (or, in some contexts, such as directions through the terms, only five), there are bound to be overlaps. Also, of course, some traditional techniques are largely independent of the choice of zodiac. Still, I also agree with Konrad that using a sidereal measurement when determining the ruler of the year, etc., does seem to work better._________________http://www.martingansten.com

i like how you articulated all that.. thanks for saying that... to go into what konrad said - seeing a difference between spiritual and religious - to me it is all the same fwiw...

konrad and martin - thanks also for commenting on this.. i concede both of you have actually studied from a sidereal point of view which means you have it up on me and are in a better position to comment on the 2 systems up to a point... now, the other part of only using 7 bodies would change it, but i thought i would like to encourage you both here!! maybe martin will comment more when he is finished traveling... happy trails!

Yes, I thought that, but then when you posted about sidereal and modern I thought I was mistaken - but now rereading it I see you're distinguishing modern from sidereal (i.e modern sidereal, traditional sidereal) etc. My mistake.

Quote:

Realistically, correct predictions are made using both zodiacs, but I see that as more of a consequence of the nature of some aspects of astrology (such as having 7 planets doing all of the talking, so there is bound to be cross-over between the two zodiacs when timing events), and the astrologer being correct more so due to non-astrological reasons than a successful application of astrological technique.

In regard to houses, I'd say this issue falls under the last point. I would hesitate to say that any system, measurement or house, is 'wrong' due to the amount of variables that go into making a prediction, but that certain options should produce more accurate results over a longer period of time than others. I think the important thing is to try and understand what each system is doing and why they were used.

I definitely agree with this last point in particular. For me, I recognise that all the systems of houses are really analysing or dividing up the mundane sphere in various ways - all of which are astronomically valid and kind of have a philosophical construct behind them or rationale for their usage - campanus is more immediately dividing up the space around an observer, Regiomontanus dividing up the earth's rotation through the perspective of the observer etc.

In that way they're all real and valid. I personally see sidereal and tropical in much the same light. There are some things which are clearly meant to be tropical in nature and I guess it's up to sidereal astrologers to account for that (antiscia and related ideas like obeying signs etc). Similarly tropical astrologers must account for precession for things like fixed stars and deal with what happens when a fixed star clearly associated with a constellation or sidereal sign precesses into a new one.

But with this particular discussion I'm not really interested in coming to any decisions about what is better or more accurate - that would never happen of course - but rather try to discuss ways in which as a community, irrespective of our differences or beliefs, that we find a way to articulate and discuss our differences without needing to make false claims for the other zodiac.

I'm curious what you make of Ken's statements in that respect._________________"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

But with this particular discussion I'm not really interested in coming to any decisions about what is better or more accurate - that would never happen of course - but rather try to discuss ways in which as a community, irrespective of our differences or beliefs, that we find a way to articulate and discuss our differences without needing to make false claims for the other zodiac.

I'm curious what you make of Ken's statements in that respect.

I think you covered any rebuttals I would have had pretty well, particularly for the unequal seasons argument, though I will admit that these, and the more general tropical/sidereal debate, are not issues that really creep into my thinking at all at the moment, so I don't think I am the best person to give a thoughtful perspective on them._________________http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com

Contact Deborah Houlding
| terms and conditions
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated